Laserfiche WebLink
3 <br />0 <br />State type of litigation and designate any statutes at issue. <br />This case is a civil action regarding the DNB's issuance of permits to <br />municipalities to appropriate groundwater. Statutes and rules at issue include: <br />• Minn. Stat. §§ 116B.03, <br />• Minn. Stat. § 103G.211 <br />• Minn. Stat. § 103G.285 <br />• Minn. Stat. § 103G.287 <br />• Minn. Stat. § 555.11 <br />• Minn. R. 6115.0670 <br />04, .10 (Minnesota Environmental Rights Act) <br />Brief description of claims, defenses, issues litigated, and result below. <br />White Bear Lake is a 2400-acre lake located in Washington and Ramsey counties. <br />The plaintiffs allege that groundwater pumping by municipalities for public water <br />supply near White Bear Lake is adversely affecting its elevation. The plaintiffs <br />sued the DNR, seeking various injunctive relief and a declaration that the DNR <br />violated the public trust doctrine and the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act <br />("MERA") by issuing the groundwater appropriation permits that authorize the <br />municipalities' pumping. <br />The DNR moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint on the bases that: (1) the <br />plaintiffs failed to join the affected municipalities as necessary parties; (2) the <br />plaintiffs were proceeding under an inapplicable section of MERA; (3) the <br />plaintiffs could not state a cause of action under the public trust doctrine for the <br />conduct alleged; and (4) the plaintiffs' requested relief violated principles of <br />separation of powers, and presented a non justiciable issue. The district court <br />denied all elements of the DNR's motion to dismiss. <br />The case proceeded to a three week trial in March 2017. The parties litigated <br />numerous issues, including: (1) whether groundwater pumping was having an <br />adverse impact on White Bear Lake; (2) the relative influence of groundwater <br />pumping in comparison to other causes of the lake's elevation decline; (3) whether <br />DNR had violated any applicable law or rule with respect to the permits; (4) the <br />municipalities' access to alternative sources of water; (5) the municipalities' <br />conservation measures; (6) the efforts of DNR and others to study and determine <br />the causes of the lake's elevation decline; and (7) DNR's efforts to manage <br />groundwater use in the northeast metropolitan area. <br />The district court entered judgment against the DNR, holding that DNR's failure <br />to reopen and amend the appropriation permits to mandate reductions in <br />groundwater pumping by permit holders violated MERA, applicable statutes and <br />rules governing groundwater withdrawals, and the public trust doctrine. The court <br />3 <br />